My mom's a Christian and even though, I am sure, she wanted to kill me at some point, she wouldn't; I don't even think if Biblegod ordered her to. Family is very important to her, as it is with many Christians, and people in general.

I was thinking about this and I was wondering if a large number of Christians were polled would the responses differ between mothers and fathers? Would mothers be less willing to kill their children than fathers? Particularly in the more fundy, patriarchal sects? I know my initial answer to the question was a flat out "no" but I am not a good representative of Christians in general...

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

That very much depends upon how one defines "consciousness" and how one defines "illusion".

There is no possibility that a person can ever make a choice about anything. In the case presented in the OP, an apparent decision will be made and it will be based on the genetics and environmental conditioning of that part of the universe we call the person faced with this choice. This supposed free agent will have no control over his or her actions whatsoever, free will and awareness itself being completely illusory or not real.

That would depend entirely upon how one defines the terms "choice" and "freewill". Have you read Dan Dennett or any other modern philosophers regarding this subject?

That very much depends upon how one defines "consciousness" and how one defines "illusion".

There is no possibility that a person can ever make a choice about anything. In the case presented in the OP, an apparent decision will be made and it will be based on the genetics and environmental conditioning of that part of the universe we call the person faced with this choice. This supposed free agent will have no control over his or her actions whatsoever, free will and awareness itself being completely illusory or not real.

That would depend entirely upon how one defines the terms "choice" and "freewill". Have you read Dan Dennett or any other modern philosophers regarding this subject?

I say this to both of you. If God exists, then choice and free will can exist simultaneously. It would not be an illusion at all. We exist in this time line, God spans the timeline simultaneously.

Biblegod is not about "choice" or "freewill". Biblegod is about "you give everything to me or suffer for all eternity". It's not really a choice if that's your only option.

Get over such pathetic fiction.

-Nam

I can choose to believe it or not Nam. I can choose to not believe in God and no fear of Judgement or hope of eternal life with nothing to look forward to except for a grave, or I can choose to believe and have something to look forward to, and still risk a grave in Hell.

Biblegod is not about "choice" or "freewill". Biblegod is about "you give everything to me or suffer for all eternity". It's not really a choice if that's your only option.

Get over such pathetic fiction.

-Nam

I can choose to believe it or not Nam. I can choose to not believe in God and no fear of Judgement or hope of eternal life with nothing to look forward to except for a grave, or I can choose to believe and have something to look forward to, and still risk a grave in Hell.

You're quite mistaken here. Belief is not a choice. One must be convinced (by either good/bad, sound/unsound, evidence or argument). If you think it is a choice then please demonstrate by willing yourself to believe in real pink flying unicorns.

p.s. - "Nothing to look forward to except the grave"?? Is that really what you think? That if you didn't believe in a god you wouldn't have anything (anything at all) to look forward to?

I say this to both of you. If God exists, then choice and free will can exist simultaneously. It would not be an illusion at all. We exist in this time line, God spans the timeline simultaneously.

In my belief nothing we are aware of can exist simultaneously with God. Things like life, free will, meaning, purpose, thought, awareness and time fall under this category. They are all illusions.

Definition of NONDUALISM (Mirriam-Webster Online): 1: a doctrine of classic Brahmanism holding that the essential unity of all is real whereas duality and plurality are phenomenal illusion and that matter is materialized energy which in turn is the temporal manifestation of an incorporeal spiritual eternal essence constituting the innermost self of all things2: any of various monistic or pluralistic theories of the universe

You're quite mistaken here. Belief is not a choice. One must be convinced (by either good/bad, sound/unsound, evidence or argument). If you think it is a choice then please demonstrate by willing yourself to believe in real pink flying unicorns.

One must be convinced (by either good/bad, sound/unsound, evidence or argument).

Isn't that hopelesly circular? How do you come to believe that the evidence on which you are convinced to believe is good or bad evidence?

That would depend upon the claim and depend upon the evidence. Either way, you still don't merely choose to believe something. As Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland has said, "You can't will yourself to believe there is a pink elephant in the room if there isn't." Whether or not you are convinced by good or bad evidence is completely irrelevant to the subject of how we come to believe things. We don't come to believe things by merely choosing. We must be convinced in some way.

In my belief nothing we are aware of can exist simultaneously with God. Things like life, free will, meaning, purpose, thought, awareness and time fall under this category. They are all illusions.

As it pertains to the God in the bible, it mentions a couple of times about how time exists with HIM in a different form that it does with us. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" and " But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."-’Peter 3:8-9 "

Oh, come on, don't be such a wet blanket. Give it a try. Seriously. It's a good experiment and makes a really good point.

We get a lot of flack from xians about how we choose to reject god. But it was not a choice for me. It was a realization that I could not believe any more. I'm sorry to draw the comparison to Santa, but that is exactly what it was like. Once I knew Santa was a fake, I could not unknow the things that lead me to that conclusion. I was kinda pissed, because I felt like I lost something, or someone.

It was the exact same feeling when I finally admitted to myself I was an atheist. I'd known for some time that none of it added up and I'd tried to make compromises and excuses. But I felt like I was losing something again.[1]

I have had a ton of xians tell me I just had to choose god again. But I can't. It would be like trying to choose to believe in Santa again.

So, give it a try. Try to choose to believe in something you know is fictional. Tell us how it goes.

I say this to both of you. If God exists, then choice and free will can exist simultaneously. It would not be an illusion at all. We exist in this time line, God spans the timeline simultaneously.

In my belief nothing we are aware of can exist simultaneously with God. Things like life, free will, meaning, purpose, thought, awareness and time fall under this category. They are all illusions.

Definition of NONDUALISM (Mirriam-Webster Online): 1: a doctrine of classic Brahmanism holding that the essential unity of all is real whereas duality and plurality are phenomenal illusion and that matter is materialized energy which in turn is the temporal manifestation of an incorporeal spiritual eternal essence constituting the innermost self of all things2: any of various monistic or pluralistic theories of the universe

If you aren't willing to put your claims (that "all is illusion", or whatever) to the test, and to define your terms, then why should I explain anything? I should just say, "Nope, you're wrong" and leave it at that, right?

Well...if I believe something, I have been convinced that it is true, if I correctly understand you. How can you say that the evidence which convinces me is objectively bad? Isn't it just a matter of you being convinced it is bad?

Oh, come on, don't be such a wet blanket. Give it a try. Seriously. It's a good experiment and makes a really good point.

We get a lot of flack from xians about how we choose to reject god. But it was not a choice for me. It was a realization that I could not believe any more. I'm sorry to draw the comparison to Santa, but that is exactly what it was like. Once I knew Santa was a fake, I could not unknow the things that lead me to that conclusion. I was kinda pissed, because I felt like I lost something, or someone.

It was the exact same feeling when I finally admitted to myself I was an atheist. I'd known for some time that none of it added up and I'd tried to make compromises and excuses. But I felt like I was losing something again.[1]

I have had a ton of xians tell me I just had to choose god again. But I can't. It would be like trying to choose to believe in Santa again.

So, give it a try. Try to choose to believe in something you know is fictional. Tell us how it goes.

Well...if I believe something, I have been convinced that it is true, if I correctly understand you. How can you say that the evidence which convinces me is objectively bad? Isn't it just a matter of you being convinced it is bad?

This "objectively" nonsense is a red-herring. I'm not concerned with absolute certainty of such things - and neither should you be. How can one be justified in thinking that X evidence is sound or unsound? Once again, that would depend upon the claim being made and the evidence which is being presented to support it.

Generally speaking making the determination as to whether a specific set of evidences/arguments is sound or unsound requires demonstration (in some fashion) to others. Are you trying to argue that all claims are equally valid?

It's just the way I see it. It's only one perspective. Believe what you want.

But of course, to use your words, you are seeing an illusion! So your belief that all is illusion is itself an illusion. So reality is not an illusion! Welcome to reality. It's not an illusion. Sorry to disappoint.